User talk:Ricky81682

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4
Another Tip of the moment...


Work faster with keyboard shortcuts

Wikipedia has keystroke combinations that can speed up your work, like alt-shift-f to "focus" on (jump to) the search box, alt-shift-m to move the current page and its talk page, alt-shift-t to open the current article's talk page, alt-shift-y to open a list of your user's contributions, and many more. Those are for Windows users. On the Mac OS, press control instead of alt.

Read more: Keyboard shortcuts

Prior tip - Next tip

To add this template to your user page, use {{Totd-random}}.
Become a Wikipedia tipster


Contents

[edit] How to get that image

Could you find me one such image available in fickr?. --Crazyguy2050 (talk) 06:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of AN/I

Thanks. I just noticed it. Sigh. I'll probably respond to it in the morning. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, ooks like I didn't have to, most it being resolved in the dead of night and early morning. That's what I get for going to business meetings bright and early that last until lunchtime. I guess I will mosey over later and see if the anon wants to try DR or simply use editor avoidance. Have a good day, and thanks for the notification. :) - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Unprotection of Craig Charles

Hi Ricky, may I ask why you unprotected this article? It's been under semi-protection for a long time for a reason... there's a very persistent vandal who has been targeting the article for years, and was targeting the article within the last 20 edits. ~Eliz81(C) 03:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're mistaken. The protection policy explicitly allows permanent semi-protection.
Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are:
Given that both those apply to this long term vandal who fixates on this one article and is still active and uses dynamic IPs, unprotecting the article is a wholly bad idea. One Night In Hackney303 03:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for reprotecting Ricky! It is unusual circumstances to be sure. This vandal guy is also affectionately known as 'jamjamjam' and 'the jam vandal', just in case you run into him in the future. All the best, ~Eliz81(C) 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I was considering a long term abuse report at one stage, but thought it was probably best not to per WP:DENY. There's Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Nam3witha3init (which are basically confirmed socks anyway, not suspected), and various IPs registered to either Flinders University or what I presume is a home ISP. Selection dating back to early 2007:
There's more prior to 2007 as well. Other than semi-protection, there's really not much can be done really. I'll leave a brief explanation on the talk page for future reference though. One Night In Hackney303 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See...

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Admin Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)--Svetovid (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, From AndyCook

Thank you very much =]. Hope to see you around here, thanks for all the help.--AndyCook (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Policy on album covers

thanks for the tip. i posted on the Wikipedia talk:Non-free content page about a week or so ago... there was already an 'album cover' header... but when i returned to see if anything has yet changed, i found the page lacking the aforementioned section. how would i go about finding it, or finding relevant policy guidelines (i.e., if the policy has changed... it seemed like a VERY unpopular policy, perhaps these people have come to their senses and i can undo that schmuck's edits to the fleshcrawl page? get everything back to normal?).

thank you

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ACP-EU logo.png

You have CSDd this article erroneously I think. There is no claim to "fair use". Permission for usage is clearly stated in the Summary and the licensing link. Please remove the tag and be a little more attentive. --Triwbe (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The licensing page says "reproduction is authorised, provided that the source is acknowledged." which has been done. WP:FU says "If material does have a copyright, it may only be copied or distributed under a license (permission) from the copyright holder, or under the doctrine of fair use". Since permission IS explicitly granted, no fair use rational is necessary. --Triwbe (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks

thanks for fixing my page. but how did you know about me?I'mOnBase 17:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Sorry you had to a trivial task for me though... But thanks a lot. I've learned my lesson about using offsite hosted scripts... Yamakiri TC § 04-14-2008 • 02:31:53

[edit] Hi, I have a question or two

I don't understand what more I am supposed to do about that image. Also, has there been some kind of arbitration involving me? I never formally requested any. It looks like there might have been a decision or something made, but I don't understand all that. I thought I was just doing what is within my rights and obligations as a Wikipedia user. I didn't ever complain to anyone about A Sniper, even though he kept messaging me and basically harassing me with numerous messages making all kind of accusations from sock puppetry to single purpose account to trolling to vandalism. He had a very nasty attitude throughout all of this and I basically just began to ignore him. I thought that's what I was supposed to do. If you look at all my correspondence I never took on the nasty tone that he did. I assume you read the following discussion. I thought I stated my case very well in it.

Eric Greif 0. A Sniper (talk · contribs) 0. Eric Greif (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Death (band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Morbid Saint (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) 0. Mötley Crüe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) A user, A Sniper, that has identified himself [34] [35] [36] [37] as a former manager and producer for the bands Death (band), Morbid Saint, Mötley Crüe is continually editing the related articles. I have left a If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. tag on the users talk page, but would appreciate other editors following up on this. dissolvetalk 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC) anyone can say anything about 'who they are' - that doesn't make it so. I have faithfully edited on a lot of pages (musical and religious), usually finding consensus on issues with the other usual editors. A Sniper (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello A Sniper. I don't perceive any bad effects from your editing, and the COI rules do allow you to participate on these articles, though with some caution. I'd still like you to say more about this edit, if you would. It seems possible that you are adding information to articles based on your own personal knowledge of events. Since you're an experienced WP editor, you're probably aware of our need for references. I'm concerned that you say, in the edit summary, that it would be 'vandalism' to remove the material. But we really don't have any reference for that information, do we? EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Hello EdJohnston. RE: the edit that you've referred to, the vandalism wasn't in the removing of the material but was in the replacing of the material with all-caps stating that a particular company was a bootlegger. I don't even know, frankly, if I was the editor who originally placed this material there, and that wasn't my reason for undoing the edit anyway. This edit you've pointed out was to undo what appeared to be personal anger by the editor against that record label. You'll also see that the same user added spanish-language notices against that record label, which I also removed. Just to make sure the edit was a good one, I checked with Google and saw a couple of references for this particular topic: [38][39][40][41]. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 10:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC) It is a bit coincidental Dissolve that just after your COI notice, Single-purpose account Jackmantas was created and started slashing the Eric Greif article to bits. Is that operating under good faith? A Sniper (talk) 10:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC) I would imagine that the other editor is editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography [42] that lacks verifiable inline citations of reliable sources and as such, may not meet Wikipedias core policies of Neutral point of view and No original research. I hope you'll re-read Assume good faith, as accusing an editor of sock puppetry [43] with no evidence is not an act of good faith, please see Please do not bite the newcomers. dissolvetalk 15:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for Jackmantas inviting him to join this discussion. I see plenty of material for discussion in the points various people have made above, without the need to immediately jump into the review of people's behavior. Referencing for our articles on musical groups is not always very good. One option is to try to get a consensus to remove all the unsourced material. Temporarily, that will leave the articles impoverished, but if these people and groups are famous, somebody must have covered them. EdJohnston (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Response by Jackmantas: Thank you Ed, for inviting me to this discussion. You are precisely correct in your statements. I am editing the article because it appears to be an autobiography. I see very little verifiable information on the page and I also see very little neutrality. Most, if not all of the links that the creator has provided as supposed references are interviews where the subject of the article is simply making claims about himself. In my mind this does not meet the minimum criteria of Wikipedia's core policies. Furthermore, I see a serious conflict of interest with this and other articles that Mr. Grief is mentioned in. It has already been revealed that Username: A Sniper and Eric Grief are actually the same person. He has admitted that himself. So, we have an individual who has created a page about himself and wrote basically everything on it and provided the images on it. (Autobiography) He has also inserted information about himself on other pages, (Motley Crue, London and Death for starters.) So it would seem we have a user who has placed unverified information on Wikipedia about himself in what would appear to be an effort to make himself appear more notable than he actually is. So we go back to the issue of whether this article is about a noteworthy enough person to justify having a Wikipedia Page. On top of all this, he is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit. So it would appear that in his accusations of vandalism and sock puppetry toward me he was abusing his trusted position as a member of Wikipedia volunteer staff to further his own agenda. I feel like I am doing the best job I can to do my part as a newcomer that wants to help out and is feeling good about doing just that. Might I add that I have always admired and marveled at Wikipedia. The amount of information contained is absolutely staggering. I had always heard that anyone could contribute to Wikipedia and while that is totally cool and innovative, at the same time it creates an environment in which widespread abuse could potentially run rampant if left unchecked. It feels good to be able to help out, and I look forward to learning all I can about how I can be of service to the Wikipedia community in the future. That is all I have to say for now. Thank you again for the opportunity to join this discussion. Jackmantas (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as the Sock puppetry goes, If you check the history of the sites that he is mentioned in, you will see that there are user accounts that were created and they only performed maybe 3 or 4 actions which involved adding information about A sniper or removing flagging from the Eric Grief site etc.

As far as me moving to the Death site to do edits there, I came upon the problems with that and other articles that link out of Eric Grief, which is a perfectly natural progression to me. I'm sure I will focus on many other sites that have nothing to do with A sniper in the future, I was just trying to clean up the problems that I saw, and there were a lot of them. If he decides to take it personally, isn't that his problem? BTW I originally stumbled onto the Eric Grief article through a natural progression of links starting at You tube. It basically became very apparent to me what was going on and I decided to step up to the plate and do some editing this time. ( I had seen problems with other Wikipedia entrys before and done nothing about them.) Sure, yes I just tried to delete the whole page at first, but that is before I knew the value of responsible editing. ( just like is described in your instructional posts that talk about "not biting the newcomers" and such.) Mr Grief chose to focus on what I did in the very beginning in an effort to make me look bad and totally ignored the many constructive edits that I have done since then.


That is all for now, Thanks for your time.

Jackmantas (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I want to thank you for your constructive edits. Of course I disagree with our new Wiki colleague above. I found it odd that, minutes after Dissolve placed a COI notice on my talk page that a 'new' user account suddenly attempted to blank an article (with rather bold explanations and without any talk page discussion), and then moved on to make slashes at another site I frequently edit at (which was reverted by another usual editor). I could only guess that this was trolling, and the single-purpose account reference appeared valid. One example was to paste a section over to the Greif article for no reason other than to add the word 'homosexual' to the article which the user falsely attributed to Greif's father. In addition, the user has made assumptions based on inferences. All I want to do is continue editing and making sure everything on here has valid sources. There were bad links that the user identified that STOOD and I did NOT revert, and he/she made a good call for a header reference within Chuck Schuldiner - I fixed the referencing. In any case, thanks again. A Sniper (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Schuldiner

With all due respect, this article is about a deceased person and is hence not a biography of a living person. I am also not the creator of the article and only one of several regular contributors. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greif

Your re-build of the article looks good. Please note that some of the online references have Greif misspelled as Grief or use the producer's former nickname of 'Eric "Griffy" Greif' (or misspelled as 'Eric "Griffy" Grief'). A Sniper (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. A timeline would be as follows: Motley Crue, Greg Leon, etc. (early 80s); Greenworld Records period, including Vyper, etc. (mid-80s); death metal period, including managing Chuck Schuldiner & Death and production of records by other heavy artists such as Morbid Saint, Invocator, Viogression, Accidental Suicide; etc., as well as co-promoter of Milwaukee Metalfest and anti-censorship activism (like in link to TV spot) ('87-90); latter music career period, from London to Aeon Spoke and Sugarmonkey ('90-05); then law stuff following final lawsuit with Schuldiner and start of legal career (mid-90s & beyond). Hope that helps. A Sniper (talk) 07:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your welcome

Happy to be of assistance. Yeah, 1300 images is more than I had expected in that section. I think we need to add some gigantic, multicolor, possibly flashing warnings to the upload screen that if they don't select a licensing template their image will be deleted, or something. Anyway, good luck dealing with all of those; there's a reason I don't hang around in the image-related areas of Wikipedia overly much. If you ever want me to run the program again leave me a note; I think I've learned enough from actually running it once to work out all the kinks for any future runs.--Dycedarg ж 07:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special:Contributions/Jackmantas

As you're aware of the above user, please note that the tit-for-tat editing has now descended to personal attacks. Please see user's contributions, some specific malicious diatribes found at [1]. I reverted some of the overt violations of WP:Etiquette, including a constant barrage at my talk page (which I've now archived). I'm trying to avoid any engagement now. If you do find evidence of trolling or abuse, I would appreciate if you could let this new user know that talk pages, especially for articles, are not meant to be a soapbox for innuendo, personal attacks and abuse. Thanks, A Sniper (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungary/Slovakia

Hi, I'm trying to sort through the complex disputes involving the Hungarian and Slovakian editors. I see that you've dealt with them a bit. Would you like to help out at User:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment? It's a centralized discussion point that I've set up, to try and get a handle on the situation. I'd appreciate a couple more uninvolved admins helping out, if you have time.  :) --Elonka 12:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I hadn't heard back from you, so just wanted to doublecheck. Is your lack of response because you are not interested, or because you're still thinking about it? Thanks, Elonka 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries! I definitely understand that this particular group of editors is very time-intensive. If you have other projects on your plate, just feel free to remove your name from the "admin" section on my page (or let me know and I'll remove it on my next update). And best wishes with your own stuff!  :) --Elonka 03:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just an FYI

MiszaBot III, only passes through once a day. So the 1 hour parameter really only means 24 hours. It is really a sorry state that so many editors complain about nothing. And yep, I do read the messages but only choose to respond if I do something wrong. Otherwise it is don't bother me with your pettiness. --pete 00:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that was meant as there not your --pete 00:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

their --pete 01:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by actual dispute? --pete 01:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)?

[edit] Re: My Endangered Image List

Okay, Ricky81682. Here's my complete image list. I would like to point out that there are some images listed there that I'm okay with having deleted, and some that I'd rather wait until the articles they were intended for come back(if they come back), before I request that they're saved. ----DanTD (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind if I put that disputed fair-use image tag on some of the others that are threatened? ----DanTD (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vilnius letter

This article, which you have edited, has been nominated for AfD. Feel free to weigh in with your comments. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] No content in Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Category-Class PlayStation articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Template:Using fb

Well, I was trying to create the Gibraltar First Division Football Template modeling the one in Faroe Islands and after creating it I saved it; however i thought that i accidentally put the fb:start fb:end stuff on the Gibraltar Club page, so i deleted it. Later when i checked i realized that i undid the wrong thing, User: Boguslavmandzyuk already undid my edit. I did not delete in intentionally; when i deleted it, i just thought it was on the Gibraltar United Club page and that i accidentally added it on when adding the template, thus deleted it. My mistake. I didn't even realize it, since i went on after that. But thanks for asking and bringing it to my attention. --Shustfan (talk) 21:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:album

Hey, I see you've readded the importance rating to the template recently. Fact is, until about two months back, when the template was converted to pp-template (that's what the edit history says), the template did not have an importance rating and hence now there are thousands of talk pages that have this template with the parameter empty. In any case, having an Importance rating for a genre-wide project like WP:album is incorrect because it is nigh impossible to rate one album (say of Hip-hop) higher than another (say of the blues). Importance ratings only carry meaning within a specific genre. Please change it back, thanks indopug (talk) 06:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nair

Mind weighing in here? You can look at a diff to see what Relata refero wants to remove. In particular, I don't understand his insistence on removing the Samurai Comparison. I went through a lot of trouble to find citations from Google Books that make the same comparison. Finally, there is the issue of Nair marriage. While I agree with him that the material is uncited, the description of the ritual is common knowledge and is described exactly as it happens. He claims Wikipedia is not a collection for ritual, but the information is not presented as such. I believe it is perfectly enclopedic material from a anthropological perspective. The same goes for the stratification of Nairs described in the Travancore State Manual. Although not prevalent today, it does provide an idea of Nair stratification from a historical perspective. He claims that the 1905 reference is simply "too old". Nothing new has been written on the subject to my knowledge (this, coming from Google [Book] searches). At any rate, your attention would be appreciated. Thanks! --vi5in[talk] 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only getting one side of this debate, but I, for one, would be fascinated to know about Nayar marriage format, for many reasons. One, in particular, is that I'm writing a dissertation on ancient love poetry, and some of the most ancient we have is in Tamil. It has characteristics comparable at some points with Mesopotamian conventions and so bears on the Hebrew which is my focus. The Hebrew is actually much closer to the Egyptian, generally speaking, but that's another matter.
However, another line of enquiry in the literature is that of traditional middle eastern wedding ceremonies, which include standard liturgies called Wasf.
In addition to all this, social conceptions of gender are often most evident in beliefs regarding marriage, which are either stated explictly, or indicated symbolically in wedding ceremonies.
As I said, I, for one, comb literature for sources of reliable documentation of such practices. It exists and is valuable across disciplines of study.
So, my two cents. Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual dimorphism

Thanks for adding the ref tag in this article. If you check back, you will see these references fell within a verbatim quote. As a rule, I use an ellipsis if removing irrelevant text from quotes. If a quote contains a footnote worth citing, I quote this separately, citing "p. 73, n3.", for example.

I expect you overlooked the quotation marks. I haven't reverted, 'cause I thought you'd probably agree and not mind doing it yourself.

A slightly more time consuming alternative would be to add another note after the ref for the quote. Something like <ref>Buss cites himself and Cite1 and Cite2 in support of ...</ref>.

Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If the points above don't make sense to you, don't worry, it's a fussy MoS thing, I'm not fussed myself or I'd revert.
As for relevance, the citations are relevant to an old edit war regarding whether humans have high sexual dimorphism or low sexual dimorphism. They specifically address that issue. They also explain why there'd be an edit war, it's touch and go. Opinion is divided, some think a) low sexual dimorphism because they think human males prefer teenage brides, others think b) moderate sexual dimorphism because they think human males prefer open relationships with females in their early twenties. At least that's how evolutionary psychologists see it with current data.
Is this relevant? To my mind published summary of academic views on degree of human sexual dimorphism are best placed in an article on Sexual dimorphism, in the In humans section. Which is where they are. Perhaps they should be in the Human article in a Sexual dimorphism section. Perhaps they should be in both. Perhaps we need to expand the discussion. I'm happy to wait and see.
Thanks for the Wiki-gnoming work, though. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Hi, I received a notice of deletion for several images. I have made the proper changes. I hope they are suitable. Libro0 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to comply however I am not sure how easy it would be to find a generic card or logo. It just seemed the most sensible thing to do - putting a sample card. Is there a possibility of acquiring permission for the use of the photos? Libro0 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bridget Moynahan

The following is all I can find about the deletion of the Bridget Moynahan image that I think is the one I uploaded.

"05:46, 29 February 2008 Ricky81682 (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Bridget moynahan int.jpg" ‎ (CSD I1: Redundant to another image: Commons commons:Image:Bridget Moynahan.jpg)"

But that other image, said to be in Commons, is not there. What is the story?? --Dumarest (talk) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

But that link also goes to an image that is not present. --Dumarest (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 24 Season 7

Thanks for doing this, I hadn't noticed that it was still in that class, even though it's been rated B class. Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And once again, thanks for doing this. Say, would you be interested in joining the project? :D You would be most welcome :) Sorry, but we don't have any fancy invite template, just text. :( Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, thanks anyway, and keep up the good work :D Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 06:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salah PROD

Not that I don't agree with this PROD, but you'd be better off taking it to AfD. I already tried PROD once with no success. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banned user Hdayejr

In regards to your edit on my talk page, the ANI discussion has been removed, so I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sportsbook.com edit war/spammer

this guy User:Fadeintoyou still isn't listening and seems hell bent on whatever his agenda is. How about a block? I'm finished trying to reason with him until he calms down. Thanks. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 05:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Justify your edits. You're the one breaking rules, not me.Fadeintoyou (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

lol this guy is hell bent on being a pain in the ass. I love his not-so-subtle ripoff of your username. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors?

According to the sources this is a fact, not a rumor. Of course no academic books deal with that, so I don't understand your point. Even if you don't trust the largest news portals in Hungary, you may trust this reference. English sources don't really follow her anyway since she's not playing so much (in February she retired if I remember well). Squash Racket (talk) 07:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. Squash Racket (talk) 07:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The comment about "English sources don't really follow her anyway" is almost identical to the post added by an anonymous IP account here in February 2008. Coincidence? I think not. This leads me to believe that Squash Racket has known about this controversy for months, i.e., is not new to the issue. Tennis expert (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Missed that one. Well, the anon IP was too lazy to search more reliable sources (at least on the internet), but basically he/she was right and shouldn't have been reverted (adding at least one reliable source).
Ricky, could you help with this? Why doesn't the linked article contain the sentence you can find (at the top of) the search results? There is a longer version of that article (subscription/printed version)? Squash Racket (talk) 05:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Email harassment

[2] You can just block them from sending you emails next time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply... Its only 24 more hours. I didn't extend the block, only kept the original end time (roughly) and enabled the email block. He's hardly been a model citizen, and a day will not kill him. If he returns to contructive editing when the block expires, well, that would be a Good Thing (tm). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Color of Friendship

Hello: I'm assuming that you saw my dispute with Cbsite about this article detailed (badly) on the Administrators' noticeboard, which led you to revise that article but keep it as a disambig page. You said in your edit comments that disambig "made the most sense", but did not respond on the Talk page to any of the discussion I and another user had posted there about why it should be a redirect, including a link to WP:Hatnotes#Two articles with the same title which says very clearly that for two articles with the same title, a redirect instead of a separate disambig page should be used. Since the entire "edit war" stemmed from Cbsite's refusal to acknowledge that guideline or explain why it shouldn't apply, your assertion that doing it otherwise "makes more sense" is not any more persuasive to me than Cbsite's persistent reverts without comment. Propaniac (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That being said, thanks for pointing out Cbsite's attempt to have _me_ reprimanded, although by the time I saw it I had to dig a bit to find the thread. I am 100% unsurprised that Cbsite didn't feel the need to let me know about it. Propaniac (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for posting on the article's Talk page; I have now reverted the article to a redirect again, although it is entirely probable that Cbsite will STILL revert it back to a disambig. What I don't understand is why in the world you would, as an administrator, make a decision between two conflicting positions without at least skimming the Talk page discussion that explains those positions; I don't believe it would be possible for you to have skimmed it without seeing that citation, which I even quoted on the Talk page itself.
I don't believe I've done a single thing wrong in this entire dispute, as far as I can tell. I saw that the article did not meet a guideline, I changed it to meet that guideline, I cited the guideline and posted extensive explanation for why that guideline exists and should be followed, I made every attempt to invite Cbsite to defend his or her position in the context of that guideline, I went out of my way to warn Cbsite that he or she could be a candidate for blocking, and then to explain the nuances of a redirect/hatnote combination when it was clear Cbsite didn't understand how it worked. Cbsite's actions have been to revert, revert, revert, first arguing that another user and I were only acting out of personal bias (which is really ironic since it's quite apparent Cbsite's motivation is to promote the article he or she wrote), and then completely ignoring all further attempts at discussion or building a consensus, and telling me to be quiet and go away, and claiming I'm harassing him or her (by offering warnings and explanations), and then to try to get me blocked for "edit warring". And when you validated Cbsite's conduct by not only affirming that Cbsite was correct, but not even offering any argument in response to the tons of justification I have provided for my own position, that Cbsite has completely ignored, that was very offensive to me.
As I said, I appreciate your publicly correcting yourself. But I would also appreciate it if, in the future, you were more careful when making a determination in "edit wars", with your decision bearing the weight of an admin, because I'm hard-pressed to see how you could have been less careful in this case. Propaniac (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
My first post on the Talk page about the issue says, at the end of the first paragraph: "This is supported by WP:Hatnotes#Two articles with the same title." Cbsite responded below that post, and then started a new topic above that one; I have no idea why. But at the bottom, below her initial response to my initial post, I referred again to the link and quoted the relevant sentence. It's true that the other user and myself didn't type out the entire anchored link every time that we referred to the guideline, but it was both cited and quoted.
I don't understand your assertion that the edit history didn't indicate that there was discussion on the Talk page, and that you assumed it was a redirect? There are three references to the Talk page in the edit history, which would seem to warrant looking at the Talk page if you were prepared to take discussion there into account. Even though I didn't specifically say so every time that I had added content to the Talk page, if you looked at it once at the time of your decision you would see everything that had been added at any point. That Cbsite decided to make it difficult to read does not make me feel less annoyed that you initially decided in her favor. (I don't need any further response on either of these points if you feel they're too minor to respond to.) Propaniac (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Cbsite has indeed reverted it to a disambig again, since I made the redirect (per your agreement) instead of you; if you could please make it a redirect to the 2000 article, I would appreciate it. If your concern is that you're not familiar enough with the articles to discern which should be the redirect target, I can point out that Cbsite has never made an argument that the 1981 article should be the target of a redirect, whereas I and the other user who commented on the Talk page have used the standards of awards, availability, and incoming links as evidence that the 2000 film is the more prominent of the two. I am really hoping that if you implement a redirect it will put this whole thing to rest. Propaniac (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it didn't put the whole thing to rest. Should I just put this up on ANI again? I really do hate to keep bugging you about this, and I'd love to stop, but I don't know what other tactic I should take. Propaniac (talk) 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The only tactic to take is to stop being so rigid and just let this go. You are, in fact, exactly as you describe yourself on your talk page. The only one who cares about this at this point is you.Cbsite (talk) 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby G

Just worked out the change re Bobby G. No help required. I am currently re-writing the page into a proper Biographical account of the subject. I've seen the reversion you put up - I can do better than that, so I'll carry on with the edit and include references and citations.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I'm assuming the page will be Start class when I've finished rather than stub. I don't think the guy deserves much more than that!--Tuzapicabit (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


I see that you're so desperately interested in Bobby G that you keep moving one tiny piece of info. I'm not all that bothered wether it's there or not and I've got better things to do with my time than to enter into a war over it. You say it needs a source - good luck to anyone who wants to find that!!! Shouldn't that mean then that every single sentence should have a reference? So everything on every article should be deleted that doesn't have a number after it? I'll let you get on with that then.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
That's all very interesting, but you can keep it. I'm not going to waste any more time writing anything for all the hassle I get. I'm going to get on with my life now and you can remove whatever you want.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Shassenfeld.jpg

So, why was the Hassenfeld image removed after so many years? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs)

[edit] WP:AN

Thanks, I am aware of that and I am in the middle of typing my response. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

your seem kind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kshanks (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Deblopper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] WP:ANI notice

There is some strange complaint about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mrshaba. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Right... I've initiated a complaint of my own. There are probably dozens of quality editors that have had to deal with this individual. In my opinion action is long overdue. I'm glad to see my reverts are seen as justifiable. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 19:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Isis Gee

Ricky, thanks for taking interest in the issue, even if you would probably never be bothered with the singer in question, the Eurovision Song Contest or the trivialities being discussed. That said, I would be most obliged if you could keep the page on your watchlist, as User:Eurovisionman will probably try to revert your, and others' edits, even violating 3RR. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a competition and this is a review of her performance by an experienced commentator. Isgreatestman (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, I am sorry to bother you, but could you please see about the crop of new user accounts set up to edit the articles? The one new picture added is actually taken from the gossip column that Eurovisionman once pushed as a "source". I am now being reported to WP:ANI, accused of being a sockpuppet, labelled "mentally ill" by some rather rude user and the articles and their talk pages are becoming stage to a grotesque spectacle. I am really not sure how to approach all that to minimize damage while not making a huge fool of myself. Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Would have to dig out the link from edit warring, not sure if I manage before much-needed bedtime... There is also a slight chance Eurovisionman might have actually made it, as this might have all been a ploy to put links to the site in WP (which help Google rankings tremendously), but only slight. For now, checkuser seem most important to me - if it proves those actually are his sockpuppets, all else becomes less relevant. Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Found it: [3] - either Eurovisionman and/or any of his suspected sockpuppets is Mr. Andrzej Szalagyi of MWMedia (and he rather than the agency has all the rights to the photo), or we are having a copyvio here. Where can I find a template where I report that? PrinceGloria (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Ricky, I am most grateful to you for bearing with me and consistently working on bringing this rather unfortunate drama to a happy end. PrinceGloria (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that too - it was the first checkuser I was following and I was really surprised it isn't immediate. As a a matter of fact, I thought every admin has the right to checkuser... Given that sockpuppet operators are usually (at least it seems so, esp. given "our" example) rather active in their disruptive activity, I guess it is crucial for WP stability to perform well-substantiated checkusers promptly. Is there some any initiative to streamline the process you know of? PrinceGloria (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Fortune Global 500 edit war

Sorry about that. Glad it's sorted. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No worries, mate. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)



Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Deblopper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Hello, Ricky81682. You have new messages at Deblopper's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] D.J. Mbenga

Check out my new comment at the bottom of the talk page. Do you think it's time to start restoring the section now with this new source? It seems reliable enough to me. Bash Kash (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Eurovisionman

I have very rarely ventured into SSP/CU requests, so I may well be incorrect, but my review of the two accounts Eurovisionman (talk · contribs) and Isgreatestman (talk · contribs) indicated that the latter has an earlier edit history (1 edit in 2007) than the former (all May 2008). I am aware that it can be determined when accounts were created, but I thought that it is the first editing account that is generally regarded as the master account. Not a biggie, and perhaps some little learning for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rex Gildo

Hi! You unprotected the above article. Could you please revert the crap that has been put into it since then and reprotect it? The vandal seems to be of the insanely persistent kind:-(. It would be helpfull if you could put the article on you watchlist, I am usually not online that often, it was only coincidence that I saw what happened. Best regards! --Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC) Is there maybe a list of frequentely vandalized pages one could put this page on?--Lamme Goedzak (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ricky81682, thank you for your comments and advice concerning REX GILDO. May I EXPLAIN to you as follows:

1. Myself and my family attended REX GILDO concerts and the overwhelming adulation was from screaming young GIRL fans of Rex Gildo. These girls were passionate fans of Rex Gildo's Romantic Ballads and his macho idol persona. The scenes I described were FACTS as witnessed by myself and others.

2. REX GILDO has never publicly or on the record ever stated anything about "gay" or "sodomy" but was a happily married man from 1974 to 1990.

3. LURID sexual innuendos are NOT correct, true or appropriate in this great artists page. Rex Gildo's music and films should dominate the page and his enormous attraction to millions of girls.

4. I have tried to CORRECT the "crap sexual vandalism" of people like Lamme Goedzak who seek to make lurid sexual points out of a family man, a happily married man REX GILDO who sold millions of records.

I hope you can help to put the record straight and make sure the REX GILDO Wiki page reflects the facts and the man as he was. A Multi Million Romantic Balladeer who captured the hearts of millions of girls/fans.

Thank you very much Ricky. From KaiserEuro1 1 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiserEuro1 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the help

Thanks! --213.40.96.218 (talk) 04:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ANI

I think you should have taken a course of action against another editor who has deleted the introduction to the article and re-wrote it himself in a POV style. I am not happy about this, great first impression. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosova2008 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)